I understand what you're saying, we just come from very different perspectives. Most of my results are after significant transformation and combination, resulting in models to test against. I'm not very concerned with copyright violation, as I rarely (never?) re-publish copyrighted information.
Have there been any court cases where a person scraping public information has been found in the wrong? I know of the LinkedIn case from Jan 2014, but in that case the offenders were creating LI accounts to scrape private information. I believe that Craigslist lost it's case against e.g. padmapper, didn't they?
While I respect what you're saying in your first sentence, I view it differently. Setting aside the legal issues, I see it as someone trying to control use in a public space. I don't consider that a valid reason -- if it's public, I can consume it. Avoiding detection is a reaction to sites trying to create rules that I interpret as invalid.
If a company tried to block off a public road without legal backing, I would consider it not only my right but also my duty to traverse that road. [mediocre analogy, but it does represent my opinion fairly accurately.]
Also worth mentioning: as long as you're scraping facts and combining them in a novel way, copyright law is much less relevant.
This opeartes in what I consider a legal grey area. Don't make it obvious that you're scraping, only scrape public information, transform the results, proxy your requests, all contribute to lowering the legal profile (which is my only concern, as I feel I am acting within my own ethical limits).
In your opinion, how much of that situation's complexity is eliminated simply by scraping the Google cache of a site?
I also wonder how possible it is to hide behind proxies, especially if they are owned by entities in other countries. If a site I'm scraping is unable to identify who does the scraping, it seems difficult for them to prove "this guy uses our data and must be scraping us".
Agreed that it can be a headache, but wanted to offer an alternative perspective.
Personally, I feel that inclusion in Google constitutes public access to the data. As long as I'm not logged into an account on their system, I feel ethically justified about scraping their data.
In other words, I do not feel compelled to respect robots.txt if that file does not also block googlebot.
Legally it may be another issue, but ethically I consider inclusion in Google as an announcement that this information is public.
Have there been any court cases where a person scraping public information has been found in the wrong? I know of the LinkedIn case from Jan 2014, but in that case the offenders were creating LI accounts to scrape private information. I believe that Craigslist lost it's case against e.g. padmapper, didn't they?
While I respect what you're saying in your first sentence, I view it differently. Setting aside the legal issues, I see it as someone trying to control use in a public space. I don't consider that a valid reason -- if it's public, I can consume it. Avoiding detection is a reaction to sites trying to create rules that I interpret as invalid.
If a company tried to block off a public road without legal backing, I would consider it not only my right but also my duty to traverse that road. [mediocre analogy, but it does represent my opinion fairly accurately.]